About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
time now we have a suspect who already was read his miranda rights. he already have a lawyer present. and i don't think that should affect any trained interrogator, any trained interviewer in doing their job. we have been doing this for many, many years. we did it against terrorist suspects, organized crimes, people who are charged with treason, spies, and it always worked, and it always gets the intended results. >> in terms of this breaking news that we've just got tonight. again, this is a senior government official saying that the initial interrogation of dzhokhar tsarnaev in his hospital bed, he says that he and his brother were not in touch with any overseas terrorists or groups. they conceived the attack on their own, motivated he told them by religious fervor. that's the language that i have been given. how -- how should that be approached in terms of strategically trying to unwind any threats that might exist beyond these young men? they're saying they acted alone. but presumably, the thing that made them want to do this could make other people want to do this as well. >> su
that they don't have to read him his miranda rights right away. as time passes, does the justification for that exception grow weaker? are they on ls strong ground? >> it sure does, because as you know, miranda rights are a bedrock constitutional principle. we all have the right to remain silent, t get an attorney and be advised of those rights. the public safety exemption is a very narrow exemption. there has to be an imminent threat to the public. it certainly seems less imminent. >> don't officials who say the terror is over, don't they kind of undercut that argument, and does it really matter in the end? >> this is certainly an argument that's going to be handed to this defendant's defense attorney when that time comes. there have been contradictory statements made that there is no public threat, there is no ticking bomb, thank goodness, apparently, based on what we know so far. so we're giving them an argument to use later. >> the issue is, the questioning that's permitted without miranda is very narrow in scope, correct? >> yes. it's about what the public threat is. it's not all
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)